Before you go off the deep end about the offense...

[Born2BaGriz]

I do understand this offense is missing some talent due to awful injuries. Of course there will be some struggles with play execution. However, that is not a reason or excuse for vanilla play calling the majority of time There is not a legitimate reason why the offensive coaches cannot mix up the play calling more, like they did the 1st half against UNC. Hell, the injuries may even be more reason to emphasize better play calling and to get our depth more experience than just handing off and killing the clock.

Lucy, you need to have sumting splained to you! Most of you can't comprehend the complexity of the offense. Many don't know that the center is calling out the coverage of the defense and making his line calls, which then need to be changed sometimes if the D shifts. So, simple point is the Oline needs to act as a unit, so when you have less expirenced players out there, you may limit the playbook to limit the chances of blown assignments. One of the reasons I failed to play more was while I could usually make the right choice doing so at game speed was another manner. What you all have to understand the speed of the game is in the same ratio from high school to college as it is from college to the NFL. In other words sometimes I went to the right place but the backer was gone and it wasn't from lack of quickness, it was from lack of near automatic recognition and being able to raise my level of play. Hence the majority of my career was limited to being the solid, but unimpressive reserve. And back to my point that the offense may be a bit bland on purpose and should only get better as we move along.

 

[Robsnotes4u]

What word would you like us to use instead of soft? I will put it this way there were 49 schedules that had had a SOS that was tougher than the Griz according to Massey. Or for all of FCS they were rated 181 by Massey and 180 by Sagarin.

As I have said already, UM's SOS suffers in most years primarily because they don't play FBS teams very often. Take off the 2 FBS teams that EWU played last year, and then let us know what EWU's SOS would be. Yes, EWU played 2 FBS teams. Great. The Griz didn't. So what. You apparently don't understand that conference play in good conferences is tough, sometimes very tough. You really are becoming an irritant, or maybe you always have been. What kind of person hangs around another team's message board?

If you read the title of this it does say "Montana Grizzlies and the FCS", doesn't it.

Because I grew up in Montana, my wife is a Griz, I have friends who are Griz. I enjoy the BSC.

I was asked by a few to come on her to Police you, as you seem to tell everyone they haven't played the game. Hard to contradict the facts I have put forward so it is bothering you, and messing up your game. Sorry, but tough shit. Don't write shit that someone can contradict, or grow a set, and realize your God Complex doesn't work for everyone.

If you don't like what I write, the other side of the coin, the devils advocate if you like, THEN DON"T READ IT.

My issue with you is that you just won't listen. All you are doing is saying the same thing over and over again. A computer ranking or two of SOS has UM at 7th or 8th in the conference last year. However, that does not mean that UM had an easy or soft schedule. UM didn't.That was the discussion/argument. It was not which team(s) have the higher computer SOS.

Conference play in good conferences is always tough. The differences in SOS is primarily that UM seldom plays FBS teams, and most other Big Sky teams play 1 or 2 FBS teams. Take away those FBS games, and UM's SOS is essentially the same, or even better in some years, than most of the rest of the conference. Yes, I agree that a credible or better or stronger team than some of non-conference games is a tougher game. However, to me, conference teams having played an FBS team or two, and usually having lost those games (not always), is not any big deal.

You are confusing computer-generated SOS with the facts. The fact is that a computer-generated SOS, which places emphasis on FBS games, is not the best indicator of how a Big Sky team has performed in conference play and against other non-conference FCS teams. Computer-generated rankings are only have some use anyway, but one that emphasizes FBS play is not a good tool for the discussion that I thought we were trying to have.

I still find it odd that you are hanging around another team's message board so much. Anyway, I have been asked by multiple people to police you now, so I will be keeping an eye out for your posts.

Are you serious, do you not understand SOS? The numbers do not lie. There is nothing that is more factual than the data. We hear it all the time in the pool world, a person says I play like a 500. The response is you have 2000 games in the system, it is accurate and you are 450, which doesn't mean you didn't play like a 500 today. So maybe your rating, because of your playing today, has raised to a 452. 5 games being played at a 500 do not compare to 2000 at a 450.

Evidently you do not have a clue on how Sagarin works, that is ok. Computer generated SOS puts no more emphasis on any game over another game. All it know is the ratings and data. your perception is that, when in reality to FBS teams overall will have better SOS, common sense.

Yes it is a great indicator, because the more data you have the accurate. If you took out the titles of FBS and FCS, leaving just Division 1 could you compare then? Does Sagarin not compare conferences to other conferences? Does he not compare teams in the same conferences to each other? Are you saying the computer doesn't not take all games into account to find an SOS?

What if a BSC team plays a FBS team, and loses. If that FBS team plays another FBS team whether it wins or loses effects every team in the BSC. Even though the BSC team lost their (and every BSC team) SOS my rise depending on the outcome of future games of that FBS, especially if you use one of Sagarin's ratings that include point differential. If their SOS rises or falls, so will yours when the algorithm pulls the data to see. You do not have to DIRECTLY play someone to have it effect you.

I The reason you do not like SOS, and Sagarin because it doesn't agree with your perception. The human factor is gone, for the most part (the data used is based on the human who built it)

 

[grizcountry420]

 

[mtgrizrule]

I do understand this offense is missing some talent due to awful injuries. Of course there will be some struggles with play execution. However, that is not a reason or excuse for vanilla play calling the majority of time There is not a legitimate reason why the offensive coaches cannot mix up the play calling more, like they did the 1st half against UNC. Hell, the injuries may even be more reason to emphasize better play calling and to get our depth more experience than just handing off and killing the clock.

Lucy, you need to have sumting splained to you! Most of you can't comprehend the complexity of the offense. Many don't know that the center is calling out the coverage of the defense and making his line calls, which then need to be changed sometimes if the D shifts. So, simple point is the Oline needs to act as a unit, so when you have less expirenced players out there, you may limit the playbook to limit the chances of blown assignments. One of the reasons I failed to play more was while I could usually make the right choice doing so at game speed was another manner. What you all have to understand the speed of the game is in the same ratio from high school to college as it is from college to the NFL. In other words sometimes I went to the right place but the backer was gone and it wasn't from lack of quickness, it was from lack of near automatic recognition and being able to raise my level of play. Hence the majority of my career was limited to being the solid, but unimpressive reserve. And back to my point that the offense may be a bit bland on purpose and should only get better as we move along.

I 100% understand and respect where you are coming from. Again, this is just another part of the formula the staff has to work into an equation for success. People are making excuses for this offense being inconsistent. The weak point for this team is an inconsistent offense. Before the UNC game, I broke down and listed things the offense needed to add to their play calling for this offense to improve. All be damn, they did those things the majority of the 1st half. Coincidence that was the best the offense has ran this season? That was one of the few games where play calling has helped it's personnel. As I have posted before, I feel the offensive play callers are capable of better. I just don't know why they don't bring their "A" game consistently? It is the job, duties, and responsibilities of our offensive staff to make necessary changes needed for a more consistent championship level offense, to support a very solid defense.

Speaking of defense, Gregorak has taken ownership of his defensive unit's, as well as his own shortcomings to better the defense and the results. Because of this, his defense has steadily improved. Yet this offensive staff has not improved as a whole. I really would love to hear the offensive staff take responsibility like Gregorak has for his defense.

Like it or not, no matter how we break down it down, the offensive staff is the key to this year's GRIZ to be a contender or pretender. Right now, their play calling is that of a pretender, setting up a disappointing early playoff loss. Fortunately the season is young. There is enough time for the offense to improve. In this time, I 100% believe our young OL will improve, and actually be very solid for the playoffs. The biggest question mark is, Can the offensive play calling improve to support a deep playoff run? With some reservation, I think play calling will improve as well. :thumb:

 

[PlayerRep]

As I have said already, UM's SOS suffers in most years primarily because they don't play FBS teams very often. Take off the 2 FBS teams that EWU played last year, and then let us know what EWU's SOS would be. Yes, EWU played 2 FBS teams. Great. The Griz didn't. So what. You apparently don't understand that conference play in good conferences is tough, sometimes very tough. You really are becoming an irritant, or maybe you always have been. What kind of person hangs around another team's message board?

If you read the title of this it does say "Montana Grizzlies and the FCS", doesn't it.

Because I grew up in Montana, my wife is a Griz, I have friends who are Griz. I enjoy the BSC.

I was asked by a few to come on her to Police you, as you seem to tell everyone they haven't played the game. Hard to contradict the facts I have put forward so it is bothering you, and messing up your game. Sorry, but tough shit. Don't write shit that someone can contradict, or grow a set, and realize your God Complex doesn't work for everyone.

If you don't like what I write, the other side of the coin, the devils advocate if you like, THEN DON"T READ IT.

My issue with you is that you just won't listen. All you are doing is saying the same thing over and over again. A computer ranking or two of SOS has UM at 7th or 8th in the conference last year. However, that does not mean that UM had an easy or soft schedule. UM didn't.That was the discussion/argument. It was not which team(s) have the higher computer SOS.

Conference play in good conferences is always tough. The differences in SOS is primarily that UM seldom plays FBS teams, and most other Big Sky teams play 1 or 2 FBS teams. Take away those FBS games, and UM's SOS is essentially the same, or even better in some years, than most of the rest of the conference. Yes, I agree that a credible or better or stronger team than some of non-conference games is a tougher game. However, to me, conference teams having played an FBS team or two, and usually having lost those games (not always), is not any big deal.

You are confusing computer-generated SOS with the facts. The fact is that a computer-generated SOS, which places emphasis on FBS games, is not the best indicator of how a Big Sky team has performed in conference play and against other non-conference FCS teams. Computer-generated rankings are only have some use anyway, but one that emphasizes FBS play is not a good tool for the discussion that I thought we were trying to have.

I still find it odd that you are hanging around another team's message board so much. Anyway, I have been asked by multiple people to police you now, so I will be keeping an eye out for your posts.

Are you serious, do you not understand SOS? The numbers do not lie. There is nothing that is more factual than the data. We hear it all the time in the pool world, a person says I play like a 500. The response is you have 2000 games in the system, it is accurate and you are 450, which doesn't mean you didn't play like a 500 today. So maybe your rating, because of your playing today, has raised to a 452. 5 games being played at a 500 do not compare to 2000 at a 450.

Evidently you do not have a clue on how Sagarin works, that is ok. Computer generated SOS puts no more emphasis on any game over another game. All it know is the ratings and data. your perception is that, when in reality to FBS teams overall will have better SOS, common sense.

Yes it is a great indicator, because the more data you have the accurate. If you took out the titles of FBS and FCS, leaving just Division 1 could you compare then? Does Sagarin not compare conferences to other conferences? Does he not compare teams in the same conferences to each other? Are you saying the computer doesn't not take all games into account to find an SOS?

What if a BSC team plays a FBS team, and loses. If that FBS team plays another FBS team whether it wins or loses effects every team in the BSC. Even though the BSC team lost their (and every BSC team) SOS my rise depending on the outcome of future games of that FBS, especially if you use one of Sagarin's ratings that include point differential. If their SOS rises or falls, so will yours when the algorithm pulls the data to see. You do not have to DIRECTLY play someone to have it effect you.

I The reason you do not like SOS, and Sagarin because it doesn't agree with your perception. The human factor is gone, for the most part (the data used is based on the human who built it)

Like I have been saying, you just won't listen. The discussion started from this comment: UM had "very soft schedule last year". I, and others don't agree. I've explained some of my reasons multiple times. I don't think you've addressed them even once.

All you want to do is provide stats on computer-generated SOS. There are pro's and con's to a computer-generated SOS. It is what it is. However, the computered-generated SOS's are skewed and flawed. In particular, they weight FBS games very high. I am happy to stipulate that EWU had a strong computer-generated SOS based primarily on playing one or more FBS teams. However, to me, that is largely irrelvant. What is relevant is games against FCS teams. Because EWU and UM are in the same conference, they play alot of the same teams.

Computer-generated ratings are based on the data selected and the weighting each piece of data is given. It is what it is, but the result is not factual. Change the selection of data and the weighting of it, and the results change--potentially even dramatically. I can see that you are in love with computer-generated ratings, but there is alot more to analyzing football and schedules than looking at Massey or Sagarin.

So, feel free to continue your love affair with computer-generated ratings, but I will continue to discuss and emphasize the multiple other important factors in assessing football and footbal teams. And you can continue to play fantasy football and think that makes you knowledgeable about the game of football. Are you a big player of video games too?

 

[Robsnotes4u]

If you read the title of this it does say "Montana Grizzlies and the FCS", doesn't it.

Because I grew up in Montana, my wife is a Griz, I have friends who are Griz. I enjoy the BSC.

I was asked by a few to come on her to Police you, as you seem to tell everyone they haven't played the game. Hard to contradict the facts I have put forward so it is bothering you, and messing up your game. Sorry, but tough shit. Don't write shit that someone can contradict, or grow a set, and realize your God Complex doesn't work for everyone.

If you don't like what I write, the other side of the coin, the devils advocate if you like, THEN DON"T READ IT.

My issue with you is that you just won't listen. All you are doing is saying the same thing over and over again. A computer ranking or two of SOS has UM at 7th or 8th in the conference last year. However, that does not mean that UM had an easy or soft schedule. UM didn't.That was the discussion/argument. It was not which team(s) have the higher computer SOS.

Conference play in good conferences is always tough. The differences in SOS is primarily that UM seldom plays FBS teams, and most other Big Sky teams play 1 or 2 FBS teams. Take away those FBS games, and UM's SOS is essentially the same, or even better in some years, than most of the rest of the conference. Yes, I agree that a credible or better or stronger team than some of non-conference games is a tougher game. However, to me, conference teams having played an FBS team or two, and usually having lost those games (not always), is not any big deal.

You are confusing computer-generated SOS with the facts. The fact is that a computer-generated SOS, which places emphasis on FBS games, is not the best indicator of how a Big Sky team has performed in conference play and against other non-conference FCS teams. Computer-generated rankings are only have some use anyway, but one that emphasizes FBS play is not a good tool for the discussion that I thought we were trying to have.

I still find it odd that you are hanging around another team's message board so much. Anyway, I have been asked by multiple people to police you now, so I will be keeping an eye out for your posts.

Are you serious, do you not understand SOS? The numbers do not lie. There is nothing that is more factual than the data. We hear it all the time in the pool world, a person says I play like a 500. The response is you have 2000 games in the system, it is accurate and you are 450, which doesn't mean you didn't play like a 500 today. So maybe your rating, because of your playing today, has raised to a 452. 5 games being played at a 500 do not compare to 2000 at a 450.

Evidently you do not have a clue on how Sagarin works, that is ok. Computer generated SOS puts no more emphasis on any game over another game. All it know is the ratings and data. your perception is that, when in reality to FBS teams overall will have better SOS, common sense.

Yes it is a great indicator, because the more data you have the accurate. If you took out the titles of FBS and FCS, leaving just Division 1 could you compare then? Does Sagarin not compare conferences to other conferences? Does he not compare teams in the same conferences to each other? Are you saying the computer doesn't not take all games into account to find an SOS?

What if a BSC team plays a FBS team, and loses. If that FBS team plays another FBS team whether it wins or loses effects every team in the BSC. Even though the BSC team lost their (and every BSC team) SOS my rise depending on the outcome of future games of that FBS, especially if you use one of Sagarin's ratings that include point differential. If their SOS rises or falls, so will yours when the algorithm pulls the data to see. You do not have to DIRECTLY play someone to have it effect you.

I The reason you do not like SOS, and Sagarin because it doesn't agree with your perception. The human factor is gone, for the most part (the data used is based on the human who built it)

Like I have been saying, you just won't listen. The discussion started from this comment: UM had "very soft schedule last year". I, and others don't agree. I've explained some of my reasons multiple times. I don't think you've addressed them even once.

All you want to do is provide stats on computer-generated SOS. There are pro's and con's to a computer-generated SOS. It is what it is. However, the computered-generated SOS's are skewed and flawed. In particular, they weight FBS games very high. I am happy to stipulate that EWU had a strong computer-generated SOS based primarily on playing one or more FBS teams. However, to me, that is largely irrelvant. What is relevant is games against FCS teams. Because EWU and UM are in the same conference, they play alot of the same teams.

Computer-generated ratings are based on the data selected and the weighting each piece of data is given. It is what it is, but the result is not factual. Change the selection of data and the weighting of it, and the results change--potentially even dramatically. I can see that you are in love with computer-generated ratings, but there is alot more to analyzing football and schedules than looking at Massey or Sagarin.

So, feel free to continue your love affair with computer-generated ratings, but I will continue to discuss and emphasize the multiple other important factors in assessing football and footbal teams. And you can continue to play fantasy football and think that makes you knowledgeable about the game of football. Are you a big player of video games too?

If you understand SOS and Sagrin it has been addressed in every post.
Don't play video games. I understand how and why the system works, because I am effected with it in my pool ratings,

What is relevant is every game between every team. Do FCS teams play more games agains FCS than FBS? Yes. Therefore the FCS games have more relevance than the FBS games. Simple.

Take the BSC, if you do not play anyone else just BSC teams you will all have ratings based on each other (use a scale of 700 for the best and 100 a terrible team) You will all fit in this scale somewhere that is your rating (Massey easily does it from FBS, FCS, to BSC) Your perception because your top team will be at the upper part of the scale is WOW they are great.

Now the MVFC does the same thing without playing out of conference and they have ratings in the same range.

MSU a 500 on the scale decides to play SDSU which is a 400. How does the 400 in MVFC compare to the 500 in the BSC? They play and the SDSU wins. What happens. They go up in rating some, not to 500 being it is one game, and MSU goes down. Not only that every team in both conferences adjust. After a few games both conferences adjust and are on the same scale.

Your SOS went up because you included a games from a tougher conference (a 400 was better than your 500) but your ratings adjusted because you arent as good as you perceived.

Now walk me through your schedule and tell me how why you think every team is a tough schedule, because to a UNC team everyone they play is tough, and they way you talk and most people talk here UND is a cupcake. JUSTIFY your position.

You need computer models. You are such a rose-colored glasses Griz, every once in awhile you need to step back take your emotions out of it and look at Sagarin or Massey. Then ask yourself what do these two, Massey ( who uses many to make their composite) and Sagarin ( who uses 3) come about the same, and I am different? What am I missing? That is what I do.

By the way, I don't play fantasy football either, but i do watch a lot of FCS football recorded and live, and go to a lot of games in a year. Best team I have watched, includes 2 or 3 games is Villanova. Good try bringing in the "knowledgeable about the game of football"

By the way who wins the conference? Is it based on wins and losses in the conference, or does it just go by PR said the Griz are the best because nobody else is knowledgeable in football? i would hate to figure a conference championship on the number of wins and losses, and not be able to rate teams using that.

Lastly if you had to bet your life on this years EWU/Montana game with points and a spread, how would you go about doing it? Would you guess? Would you use the football knowledgeable that only you seem to have? Would you maybe take a peak at Massey, Sagarin, or even the Versus app to see what they are thinking?

On second thought do not reply, with your thoughts on why your perception is the Griz had a tough schedule, I don't need to read anymore of the "it is because i said so, and you don't know the game, BS"

Good luck in the game this weekend, I look forward to reading your synopsis after.

 

[AZGrizFan]

All you want to do is provide stats on computer-generated SOS. There are pro's and con's to a computer-generated SOS. It is what it is. However, the computered-generated SOS's are skewed and flawed. In particular, they weight FBS games very high. I am happy to stipulate that EWU had a strong computer-generated SOS based primarily on playing one or more FBS teams. However, to me, that is largely irrelvant. What is relevant is games against FCS teams. Because EWU and UM are in the same conference, they play alot of the same teams.

Spoken like a true lawyer! :lol: :lol:

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I am flagging both PR and Rob's Notes 4 Me - 15 yards for abuse of the quote function.

 

[Raider]

I am flagging both PR and Rob's Notes 4 Me - 15 yards for abuse of the quote function.

...tack on another 15 for having wayyyyyy to much time on their hands.

Good gawd fellas.

 

[PlayerRep]

My issue with you is that you just won't listen. All you are doing is saying the same thing over and over again. A computer ranking or two of SOS has UM at 7th or 8th in the conference last year. However, that does not mean that UM had an easy or soft schedule. UM didn't.That was the discussion/argument. It was not which team(s) have the higher computer SOS.

Conference play in good conferences is always tough. The differences in SOS is primarily that UM seldom plays FBS teams, and most other Big Sky teams play 1 or 2 FBS teams. Take away those FBS games, and UM's SOS is essentially the same, or even better in some years, than most of the rest of the conference. Yes, I agree that a credible or better or stronger team than some of non-conference games is a tougher game. However, to me, conference teams having played an FBS team or two, and usually having lost those games (not always), is not any big deal.

You are confusing computer-generated SOS with the facts. The fact is that a computer-generated SOS, which places emphasis on FBS games, is not the best indicator of how a Big Sky team has performed in conference play and against other non-conference FCS teams. Computer-generated rankings are only have some use anyway, but one that emphasizes FBS play is not a good tool for the discussion that I thought we were trying to have.

I still find it odd that you are hanging around another team's message board so much. Anyway, I have been asked by multiple people to police you now, so I will be keeping an eye out for your posts.

Are you serious, do you not understand SOS? The numbers do not lie. There is nothing that is more factual than the data. We hear it all the time in the pool world, a person says I play like a 500. The response is you have 2000 games in the system, it is accurate and you are 450, which doesn't mean you didn't play like a 500 today. So maybe your rating, because of your playing today, has raised to a 452. 5 games being played at a 500 do not compare to 2000 at a 450.

Evidently you do not have a clue on how Sagarin works, that is ok. Computer generated SOS puts no more emphasis on any game over another game. All it know is the ratings and data. your perception is that, when in reality to FBS teams overall will have better SOS, common sense.

Yes it is a great indicator, because the more data you have the accurate. If you took out the titles of FBS and FCS, leaving just Division 1 could you compare then? Does Sagarin not compare conferences to other conferences? Does he not compare teams in the same conferences to each other? Are you saying the computer doesn't not take all games into account to find an SOS?

What if a BSC team plays a FBS team, and loses. If that FBS team plays another FBS team whether it wins or loses effects every team in the BSC. Even though the BSC team lost their (and every BSC team) SOS my rise depending on the outcome of future games of that FBS, especially if you use one of Sagarin's ratings that include point differential. If their SOS rises or falls, so will yours when the algorithm pulls the data to see. You do not have to DIRECTLY play someone to have it effect you.

I The reason you do not like SOS, and Sagarin because it doesn't agree with your perception. The human factor is gone, for the most part (the data used is based on the human who built it)

Like I have been saying, you just won't listen. The discussion started from this comment: UM had "very soft schedule last year". I, and others don't agree. I've explained some of my reasons multiple times. I don't think you've addressed them even once.

All you want to do is provide stats on computer-generated SOS. There are pro's and con's to a computer-generated SOS. It is what it is. However, the computered-generated SOS's are skewed and flawed. In particular, they weight FBS games very high. I am happy to stipulate that EWU had a strong computer-generated SOS based primarily on playing one or more FBS teams. However, to me, that is largely irrelvant. What is relevant is games against FCS teams. Because EWU and UM are in the same conference, they play alot of the same teams.

Computer-generated ratings are based on the data selected and the weighting each piece of data is given. It is what it is, but the result is not factual. Change the selection of data and the weighting of it, and the results change--potentially even dramatically. I can see that you are in love with computer-generated ratings, but there is alot more to analyzing football and schedules than looking at Massey or Sagarin.

So, feel free to continue your love affair with computer-generated ratings, but I will continue to discuss and emphasize the multiple other important factors in assessing football and footbal teams. And you can continue to play fantasy football and think that makes you knowledgeable about the game of football. Are you a big player of video games too?

If you understand SOS and Sagrin it has been addressed in every post.
Don't play video games. I understand how and why the system works, because I am effected with it in my pool ratings,

What is relevant is every game between every team. Do FCS teams play more games agains FCS than FBS? Yes. Therefore the FCS games have more relevance than the FBS games. Simple.

Take the BSC, if you do not play anyone else just BSC teams you will all have ratings based on each other (use a scale of 700 for the best and 100 a terrible team) You will all fit in this scale somewhere that is your rating (Massey easily does it from FBS, FCS, to BSC) Your perception because your top team will be at the upper part of the scale is WOW they are great.

Now the MVFC does the same thing without playing out of conference and they have ratings in the same range.

MSU a 500 on the scale decides to play SDSU which is a 400. How does the 400 in MVFC compare to the 500 in the BSC? They play and the SDSU wins. What happens. They go up in rating some, not to 500 being it is one game, and MSU goes down. Not only that every team in both conferences adjust. After a few games both conferences adjust and are on the same scale.

Your SOS went up because you included a games from a tougher conference (a 400 was better than your 500) but your ratings adjusted because you arent as good as you perceived.

Now walk me through your schedule and tell me how why you think every team is a tough schedule, because to a UNC team everyone they play is tough, and they way you talk and most people talk here UND is a cupcake. JUSTIFY your position.

You need computer models. You are such a rose-colored glasses Griz, every once in awhile you need to step back take your emotions out of it and look at Sagarin or Massey. Then ask yourself what do these two, Massey ( who uses many to make their composite) and Sagarin ( who uses 3) come about the same, and I am different? What am I missing? That is what I do.

By the way, I don't play fantasy football either, but i do watch a lot of FCS football recorded and live, and go to a lot of games in a year. Best team I have watched, includes 2 or 3 games is Villanova. Good try bringing in the "knowledgeable about the game of football"

By the way who wins the conference? Is it based on wins and losses in the conference, or does it just go by PR said the Griz are the best because nobody else is knowledgeable in football? i would hate to figure a conference championship on the number of wins and losses, and not be able to rate teams using that.

Lastly if you had to bet your life on this years EWU/Montana game with points and a spread, how would you go about doing it? Would you guess? Would you use the football knowledgeable that only you seem to have? Would you maybe take a peak at Massey, Sagarin, or even the Versus app to see what they are thinking?

Feel free to start another thread about computer-generated ratings systems. While the discussion about whether UM a soft schedule last year is probably about over--in part because of your incessant regurgitation of the same computer-generated stats/stuff--some of us would prefer to talk about the offense.

P.S. If I were betting on the UM/EWU game, I would base the bet on watching the teams, general football knowledge, instincts, and talking to knowledgeable friends--and not on looking at computer-generated ratings. I would also look carefully at what the coaches are saying. The computer-generated rankings are too flawed and skewed in my view. They don't take into account how teams are playing currently. They don't take into account injuries. They don't take into account likely weather conditions. I get more from looking at the polls, particuarly coaches' polls, than computer ratings.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Rest assured, the offense will not be making us go off the deep end. I think PR and Rob have already got us there.

Good to see PR has a new sparring partner this week.

 

[Robsnotes4u]

I am flagging both PR and Rob's Notes 4 Me - 15 yards for abuse of the quote function.

...tack on another 15 for having wayyyyyy to much time on their hands.

Good gawd fellas.

You are right, I am done. I can't afford a total of 30 yards in penalties, my offense really sucks. (not picking on the Griz, talking UND)

 

[IroneagleXP]

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS playarape. You are the most annoying f'ing guy on this board. How do you not understand what Rob is trying to tell you. It is pretty simple man.... The absolute reality of the situation is that you are such a griz homer that you can't recognize common f'ing sense. You are a detriment to this forum, your team, your family, and your country. Alright. In all seriousness, dude, don't be such a tool. I know this is impossible because your baseline personality is douche, but I still have to try. Have you ever been a bystander listening to a conversation between two people, and one person is such an absolute jack ass that it takes everything in your power not to butt in and point that out. Well you are the quintessential jack ass, ALL THE TIME. No playarape, it is not a coincidence that you catch so much shit on Egriz, and no playarape, all the attention doesn't mean people like you. Do you like social psychology? Here's one for you...100 people go to a party. By the end of the party there have been 6 fights. Each one of those fights had one thing in common: Subject A (A is short for asshole). People always say that you should always just be yourself, but bro, it's not working for you.

 

[grizcountry420]

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS playarape. You are the most annoying f'ing guy on this board. How do you not understand what Rob is trying to tell you. It is pretty simple man.... The absolute reality of the situation is that you are such a griz homer that you can't recognize common f'ing sense. You are a detriment to this forum, your team, your family, and your country. Alright. In all seriousness, dude, don't be such a tool. I know this is impossible because your baseline personality is douche, but I still have to try. Have you ever been a bystander listening to a conversation between two people, and one person is such an absolute jack ass that it takes everything in your power not to butt in and point that out. Well you are the quintessential jack ass, ALL THE TIME. No playarape, it is not a coincidence that you catch so much shit on Egriz, and no playarape, all the attention doesn't mean people like you. Do you like social psychology? Here's one for you...100 people go to a party. By the end of the party there have been 6 fights. Each one of those fights had one thing in common: Subject A (A is short for asshole). People always say that you should always just be yourself, but bro, it's not working for you.

Nice...

 

[mtgrizrule]

Mods, please don't move this thread yet. It is great entertainment. Ironeagle now wants a piece of PR in the sparring.

 

[grizcountry420]

Mods, please don't move this thread yet. It is great entertainment. Ironeagle now wants a piece of PR in the sparring.

Ironeagle stated facts, it's kinda hard to argue that..

 

[mtgrizrule]

Mods, please don't move this thread yet. It is great entertainment. Ironeagle now wants a piece of PR in the sparring.

Ironeagle stated facts, it's kinda hard to argue with that..

Other than PR and whoever he is sparring with, who is arguing? :thumb: :clap:

 

[Mousegriz]

Griz schedule last year had to be tougher....according to PR the FBS compared to D2 games don't count toward strength of schedule and EWU didn't have to play itself last year. Since UM played them and they were the better team, that game alone made the Griz' schedule tougher than EWU's.

Why doesn't someone start a "Before you go off the deep and about the offense...." thread. This one is obviously all about billiards and SOS.

 

[IroneagleXP]

Here PR, just in case you are more of a visual learner

 

[Raider]

Personally, I find the Cat fan posing as an Eagle fan to talk shit to Griz fans a refreshing and original method of trolling.

Last year, as BigSky33, we he was too obvious. This year he has gotten better. Sparring with PR is just an entertaining bonus.

“A” for originality my man.